That might me a strategy to get away. But the photo in the article doesn't look like some surveillance photo, but a mugshot.
Some passages don't reinforce confidence in the legal system either:
altering photographs was “standard practice among investigators,”
That might me a strategy to get away. But the photo in the article doesn't look like some surveillance photo, but a mugshot.
Some passages don't reinforce confidence in the legal system either:
> altering photographs was “standard practice among investigators,”
Shouldn't a clear mugshot be used for witnesses to point out who they think the person was?
As for altering photographs being “standard practice among investigators,” I don't see a problem with that as long as any resulting evidence is submitted including information about the nature of photo alteration. ie. It should be clearly stated in court that the suspect's photo was altered to conceal his obvious facial tattoos. If that's not being done, I agree that's pretty bad.
Shouldn't a clear mugshot be used for witnesses to point out who they think the person was?
As for altering photographs being “standard practice among investigators,” I don't see a problem with that as long as any resulting evidence is submitted including information about the nature of photo alteration. ie. It should be clearly stated in court that the suspect's photo was altered to conceal his obvious facial tattoos. If that's not being done, I agree that's pretty bad.
I'm guessing it's a least possible that someone would mask their facial tattoos with makeup or similar if they were going to commit a robbery.